Bogus Complaint Aladdin's Gold/Club World complaint - player fraud

[vinylweatherman]

In which case I suggest you say so and stick with that. The rest of your derisive commentary -- "It looks to me like a pointless exercise", etc -- is unfounded and uncalled for. I put it to you that it's just a lot of blustery, long-winded hot air and who needs that?



Are you having a bad day or are you being intentionally obtuse for the sake of drama? The whole purpose of the PAB process -- as you well know -- is for us to bring an unbiased perspective to the OP's case and to prod the issue toward some kind of resolution.

In this particular case the OP has done a number of things that ignore and/or obstruct the basic requirements of allowing the casino to properly verify his identity. I have made it clear to the OP that his case is DOA until he cooperates more fully with the casino. If the OP has inadvertently fouled things up then he now has a clear path ahead of him to fix that, with the weight of the PAB process behind him. If his actions were intentional and/or he is unwilling to cooperate then he's only got himself to blame.

I'd say I've done a damn sight more to expedite the OP's case than huff and puff and make a lot of spurious accusations which is largely what you seem to have contributed here. I suggest you'd do well to show a little more respect to your host and pay somewhat less attention to the sound of your own voice.

As to the six month issue it so happens that I agree, that does bear looking into. I'll take that to the casino management to see what I can turn up.

I am having a bad YEAR

I am seeing a whole string of disasters unfold, most notably Purple Lounge. I am also seeing a sharp increase in bullshit from operators, most notably the string of "improvements" that mean it takes ever longer to receive payment. CWC are already suffering adverse comment over worsening delays in what used to be same day payments.

I am personally seeing withdrawals from accredited casinos take longer than they did before, all in the name of "improvement".

I also see the term "fraud" widely misused by operators to cover what is nothing more sinister than being better at math than the casino manager, which is what I thought this case was all about - a smart player that outsmarted the casino over a table games bonus, yet broke no actual terms.

Despite pressure from players to move back to how things were, the operators persist in disregarding such views in favour of ever more "improvement". Jackpot Factory are the most recent group to "improve" their service by cutting out flush on request, and doubling the pending period to 48 hours. There defence is effectively "well, everybody else is doing it".

To me, it shows what operators REALLY think of their customers.

Clearly, the player community are currently not pushing back hard enough, else we would be seeing changes in the other direction, with operators competing with each other to improve services in the direction that players want them improved. Pushing back often needs a "case study" to focus the effort, and sometimes it can work.

BelleRock tried to slip a 10 day pending period under the radar, and went so far as to lie to Simmo when a German player suffered it. When they did the same with me, they decided it was not such a good idea. It was publicity on that thread that "pushed back" hard enough to make them go back to 48/72 hour pending.

I will now grant myself a holiday from making further posts in this thread until such time as we have a result either way.

 

[maxd]

Clearly, the player community are currently not pushing back hard enough, else we would be seeing changes in the other direction, with operators competing with each other to improve services in the direction that players want them improved. Pushing back often needs a "case study" to focus the effort, and sometimes it can work.

As much as I agree that casino practice could and should improve I fail to see how making a hullaballoo over this particular case is going to accomplish that. Aside from the "six month question" the bottom line here is that the casino has a pretty reasonable case for calling "fraudster". Championing this player's cause is very much a case of barking up the wrong tree, especially since this player could clear up their problems in a day or so if they were properly cooperative with the casino regarding identity verification. And they could have done so a long time ago.

Furthermore slagging our efforts off as "not going to make a difference", etc also seems rather wide of your stated mark of improving the average player's lot.

By all means do what you can to improve casino practice but I think you owe it to yourself and everyone else to be a little more discriminating. Banging the pots and pans over any old thing just means you are making a lot of noise ... and needlessly pissing off a few folks that would otherwise be your allies in the process.

 

[Seventh777]

From what I can make of this and I greatly respect both maxd and VWM`s input is thus, the OP has 7k drifting around in the never-land (no small amount in most currencies), maxd and the PAB process have thrown the OP a `Come get your cash, if you haven`t committed any acts of fraudulent activity, there is a 7k bounty awaiting you` lifeline, to which the OP has not responded to.

In VWM haste and fervour he appears to have completely overlooked this aspect.

 

[EdieD]

I don't understand why the situation evolved like this. If the casino felt there was fraud involved, why did'nt they speak directly the the OP instead of avoiding the situation? The strategy appeared to be avoid contact and hope he gambles away the money over 6 months. That strategy, while very unprofessional and unethical would probably work 95% of the time.

Ironically. It did'nt work this time and now it went down this path. The casino should have handled the situation professionally. I certainly would not want to play at any business that doesn't know how to take care of business.

 

[maxd]

FWIW the casino people say they only have four chat transcripts with the OP on record for this year. Phone records are less definitive, due in part to office relocation, etc. As to some of the rest of it it appears that the OP was flagged as suspect fairly early on so when the time case the OP's profile and activities justified the reversals.

AFAIC this one is in the OP's hands: since he hasn't fully cooperated with the casino regarding identity verification his withdrawals were rightly withheld. From what I've seen his activities made him a prime fraud suspect, the casino's actions were justified given the evidence before them, and the onus is on the OP to turn things around.

As to VWM's suggestion that suspected fraudsters should be automatically locked out pending an investigation and a final decision I can only say that such a notion completely ignores many of the realities of internet casino fraud detection and verification. Also the pragmatics of taking a "lockout first, ask questions later" approach are highly dubious: any casino that did this would quickly become Public Enemy #1 for such draconian practices.

And the casino should do this ... why? To protect a few players from blowing their balances? That excuse would sound awfully thin to the many innocent players who had been locked-out and forced to await the outcome of the casino's investigations. I'd say it would much more likely be seen as an unjustified freezing of funds and players would flee any casino that did this, in droves. Again, "yes" to championing player rights etc but well-placed reality checks have got to be part of that process. In other words think about what you're asking for when you start demanding change(s), you may be making things a lot worse than they already are.

 

[EdieD]

After 6 months, the casino obviously were paid for all deposits made by the poster. My belief is that the onus is on the casino. If they accept the deposit and bet, they accept the responsibility of paying winners. Gambling is winning and losing and that's the business a casino is in.

Any casino that runs their operation like this would get my business which is why I currently mostly play land based. The casino pays after the player deposits money and bets. No excuses later.

 

[Casinomeister]

...
Ironically. It did'nt work this time and now it went down this path. The casino should have handled the situation professionally. I certainly would not want to play at any business that doesn't know how to take care of business.

This company knows how to "take care of business". You should read up a little on the history of this company before making broad accusations.

 

[shahran84]

There must be a good reason why they are delaying your withdrawal.
I've been paid more than $9000 USD from them in three installments. $4000, $4000 and $1000.
Not a problem though.

 

[Nifty29]

After 6 months, the casino obviously were paid for all deposits made by the poster. My belief is that the onus is on the casino. If they accept the deposit and bet, they accept the responsibility of paying winners. Gambling is winning and losing and that's the business a casino is in.

Any casino that runs their operation like this would get my business which is why I currently mostly play land based. The casino pays after the player deposits money and bets. No excuses later.

Maybe you should read the thread again, as these comments are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

 

[skiny]

I don't have nearly enough information to even guess who's right or wrong here so I won't suggest either is.

The 6 months bugs me. It bugs me that a player would leave 7k sitting around for half a year without having a melt down and either typing up a temper tantrum or dumping it all in a single who gives a rat's ass gambling spree.

It also bugs me that a casino would suspect someone of fraud for 6 months and not really do much about it. From what I understand the problem is the casino cannot verify the OP's identity so the casino's course of action is to leave the account sitting around with a playable 7000 dollars in it but until the identity is verified he can't make a withdrawal. I applaud the casino for not locking the account for suspicion. That would truly be unfair but there does come a time when you really should shit or get off the pot. Explain to the player what the problem is. Explain exactly what you need to remedy it. Give the player ample time to comply and if they can't comply return the deposits (since you have no proof the player is lying) and lock the account. If the player ever does provide the required information welcome him back and start fresh.

Keep in mind if a casino does return the deposits and lock an account the option to PAB still exists but 6 months to find a solution really shouldn't be necessary. If I ran a casino I'd want these things cleared up as soon as possible.

As much as I agree that casino practice could and should improve I fail to see how making a hullaballoo over this particular case is going to accomplish that.

Making a "hullaballoo" about every case is how we get things done. Beat the laundry on a rock long enough, eventually the dirt comes out. (I just made that up. )

 

[max1mike]

Funny that's there is never any problem Taking the "suspected" frauds money, until it comes time to cash out.

 

[skiny]

Funny that's there is never any problem Taking the "suspected" frauds money, until it comes time to cash out.

Well, they're not actually taking anything. I seriously doubt anyone is depositing with a 7k balance. Apparently the problem came after the withdrawal was initiated and during some sort of verification process. In fact, we don't even know if he is actually "suspected" of something, do we? All I know for sure is they're unable to verify something.

And they've been unable to verify it for 6 months.

 

[anniemac]

My opinion, and it means absolutely nothing but here it is anyway, is this - if I had won $7K at any casino, I would be jumping thru each and every hoop they wanted me to in order to get paid and it wouldn't take me 6 months to pitch a fit if I didn't get paid.

Unless I was in the poky where I couldn't pursue payment, I would have my money or everybody on the internet would know about it.

Just makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Nifty29]

Funny that's there is never any problem Taking the "suspected" frauds money, until it comes time to cash out.

You know very well that the ID/security checks are done at cashout time. The reason they are not done beforehand have been well documented and discussed here over the years, and very few casinos do a thorough check before play commences (can't think of one right now actually).

IMO you are just taking another opportunity to slag off CWC for personal reasons that are immaterial to the issue at hand.

It seems to me that the OP is attempting to use the forum to blackmail/force CWC into paying them without having to submit the ID requested 6 months ago, presumably because the OP knows they will be caught out by such processes. The op was asked for ID, which they did not provide. I don't see why the casino should continually chase them for said ID. I think it was another ploy by the OP hoping that by resubmitting their withdrawal over and over and ignoring the ID request they might get lucky one day and the cashout might be approved for reason of oversight etc.

The fact that they still haven't sent ID should give you a clue....but we won't let facts stand in the way of a good CWC bash.

 

[max1mike]

You know very well that the ID/security checks are done at cashout time. The reason they are not done beforehand have been well documented and discussed here over the years, and very few casinos do a thorough check before play commences (can't think of one right now actually).

IMO you are just taking another opportunity to slag off CWC for personal reasons that are immaterial to the issue at hand.

It seems to me that the OP is attempting to use the forum to blackmail/force CWC into paying them without having to submit the ID requested 6 months ago, presumably because the OP knows they will be caught out by such processes. The op was asked for ID, which they did not provide. I don't see why the casino should continually chase them for said ID. I think it was another ploy by the OP hoping that by resubmitting their withdrawal over and over and ignoring the ID request they might get lucky one day and the cashout might be approved for reason of oversight etc.

The fact that they still haven't sent ID should give you a clue....but we won't let facts stand in the way of a good CWC bash.

nevermind.

 

[chuchu59]

My apologies if I havent followed this thread closely enough but has CW ever shown their sense of commitment in resolving this issue through communicating with the OP. If they think he is a fraudster tell it straight into his face but nevertheless, should not fall into the habit of not responding. This is not the first time CW has been accused of being non-communicative and in this instance it just played into the OP's hands. I trust Max so when he says there is enough evidence to show that the OP did commit acts of fraud that's it and he is not entitled to his winnings. CW must not shun the non-communication factor as it will definitely rear its ugly head again in the future. Already, many US players are unhappy with them for dodging the issue on apparent delays in payment so even if they are coming up with excellent promos as stated in another thread many players are sure to vote with their feet.

 

[max1mike]

You know very well that the ID/security checks are done at cashout time. The reason they are not done beforehand have been well documented and discussed here over the years, and very few casinos do a thorough check before play commences (can't think of one right now actually).

IMO you are just taking another opportunity to slag off CWC for personal reasons that are immaterial to the issue at hand.

It seems to me that the OP is attempting to use the forum to blackmail/force CWC into paying them without having to submit the ID requested 6 months ago, presumably because the OP knows they will be caught out by such processes. The op was asked for ID, which they did not provide. I don't see why the casino should continually chase them for said ID. I think it was another ploy by the OP hoping that by resubmitting their withdrawal over and over and ignoring the ID request they might get lucky one day and the cashout might be approved for reason of oversight etc.

The fact that they still haven't sent ID should give you a clue....but we won't let facts stand in the way of a good CWC bash.

where do you get that the OP didnt send ID?...

from the original post...

"First, I was asked for my identification and proof of address. Okay, I sent that in. Next, I was asked to send in a faxback form..... Okay, I completed that as well. Next...... well nothing came next, there was just silence and my withdrawals were reversed everytime I requested them. So I contacted support via their live chat and was told that all my documents as well as my faxback had received and been in order and approved. I cashed out again... reversed. This time, I was told my account "was with a manager" and I'd hear back soon."


and again, you think that I'm just " taking another opportunity to slag off CWC for personal reasons that are immaterial to the issue at hand."

you are just taking yet another opportunity to have a run at a forum member without contributing anything relevant to the thread.


back on ignore you go nifty.

 

[skiny]

First, I was asked for my identification and proof of address. Okay, I sent that in. Next, I was asked to send in a faxback form..... Okay, I completed that as well. Next...... well nothing came next, there was just silence and my withdrawals were reversed everytime I requested them.

In this particular case the OP has done a number of things that ignore and/or obstruct the basic requirements of allowing the casino to properly verify his identity.

From what I see we have two entirely different stories. The OP's and the casino's. (I'm assuming Max's info comes from the casino.) Personally I have no proof that convicts either of them of anything but I am wondering where the OP went.

Did he go silent because of the PAB or did he decide to wait another 6 months to complain again. (I wish he could have taught my exwife that.)

 

[EdieD]

This company knows how to "take care of business". You should read up a little on the history of this company before making broad accusations.

This is your opinion which you are entitled too. My opinion differs as I feel by letting this situation go on for six months, they did not take care of business. In business, prompt customer service and problem resolution in a timely matter is extrememly important. Well run and reputable businesses operate this way.

Based on what I read in this thread, the casino did not handle the situation professionally.

 

[Nifty29]

This is your opinion which you are entitled too. My opinion differs as I feel by letting this situation go on for six months, they did not take care of business. In business, prompt customer service and problem resolution in a timely matter is extrememly important. Well run and reputable businesses operate this way.

Based on what I read in this thread, the casino did not handle the situation professionally.

At this point, from what max says, it appears the OP has been economical with the truth. Max has seen what the casino has, and part of that seems to be that the OP has not provided acceptable ID and has been advised of this.....and has failed to provide it after 6 months. Sorry, but no LEGIT player would wait 6 months before deciding to bother doing something about getting their money.

It comes down to who you believe.....some blow-in with a very sketchy story with holes you could jump through, or the moderator here who has seen all the evidence etc and has told the OP that all they need do is provide the requested ID....and they haven't and probably won't.

You seem to have strong opinions about the casino and the innocence of the player for a newb.....hmmmm....

 

[chuchu59]

At this point, from what max says, it appears the OP has been economical with the truth. Max has seen what the casino has, and part of that seems to be that the OP has not provided acceptable ID and has been advised of this.....and has failed to provide it after 6 months. Sorry, but no LEGIT player would wait 6 months before deciding to bother doing something about getting their money.

It comes down to who you believe.....some blow-in with a very sketchy story with holes you could jump through, or the moderator here who has seen all the evidence etc and has told the OP that all they need do is provide the requested ID....and they haven't and probably won't.

You seem to have strong opinions about the casino and the innocence of the player for a newb.....hmmmm....

Nifty,

You are entitled to your suspicions and that's what I am thinking too though I loathe to voice it in public. Actually, its now up to the OP to show us evidence backing up his claim that CW has not responded to him for over 6 months. CW is risking its reputation by not showing how they had tried to communicate with the OP instead of avoiding the issue lest others run wild with suspicions. In case, they chose the route of being non-responsive, I am sure many would like to know why.

 

[maxd]

... bugs me that a casino would suspect someone of fraud for 6 months and not really do much about it.

That's a hell of an assumption, and as it happens it's quite wrong. The casino did "do something" and that something compounded the case against the OP, hence the problem. IYAM the casino's responsibility in cases of suspected fraud is to pursue that case, to try to prove the case one way or the other. I believe the casino did that so IMO they did what should have been done. Whether this is to the player's liking or not is not particularly relevant, IMO. After all, they're a suspected fraudster and have failed some of the casino's established and publicly-stated security procedures. In other words they're in violation of the Terms but not quite enough to slam the book on them. This puts them in limbo, whether they like it or not.

At that point the casino had the choice between booting a suspected player or leaving the account open while the case developed. They chose the latter which, most seem to agree, is the preferred way to go.

Making a "hullaballoo" about every case is how we get things done. Beat the laundry on a rock long enough, eventually the dirt comes out. (I just made that up. )

Cute but not particularly applicable. If the "laundry" is the player's case and the "dirt" you're supposedly trying to beat out is casino mismanagement then you're beating up clean laundry. So beating on it "until the dirt comes out" will probably just ruin the laundry. So congratulations, you've got tired arms, wasted a bunch of soap and water and turned perfectly good laundry into threadbare rags. There's a good day's work for you!

This idea that any case is a good case when it comes to championing player rights is BS. I see a lot of these player cases pass over my desk and the vast majority where the player is caught up in the system -- as I suggest we could describe this case -- are due to the player trying to dick around with the system. In other words it's often a case where they're cheating but they haven't totally cocked it up so the jury is still out. And whose fault is that?

Suggesting that the suspected fraudster who hasn't been proven guilty is just another innocent player is like saying that the bank robber who hasn't been captured yet is just another innocent civilian. No, it may well be that he's just at large, no more and no less. "Innocent until proven guilty" is great for lawyers and juries and courts of law, but that's not the world we live in when it comes to online gaming. For the most part there is no "rule of law" here so we do the best we can under the circumstances. In practice that means that the suspected fraudster is somewhere in the grey zone between "player" and "cheat". With luck reasonable people will try to gather evidence in an attempt to reach a fair conclusion. Sometimes that happens quickly and sometimes it doesn't. The best we can hope for is that the people are "reasonable", that judgements are not made without supporting evidence, and that in the end the actions taken are fair. I believe the OP's case qualifies on all counts.

... has CW ever shown their sense of commitment in resolving this issue through communicating with the OP. If they think he is a fraudster tell it straight into his face ....

Having reviewed this case in some detail I concluded that CW was not negligent in their handling of the OP. They followed their published procedures well enough AFAIC. Did the player's situation drag on? Yes. Was the player fully cooperative in seeing things resolved in a timely fashion? No. So was there reasonable justification for the delays? Yes, IMO. As I've said several times now, the players activities helped made this situation what it is. If you're going to start painting people with the blame brush then the player deserves their fair share of it. Acting as if the fault is all the casino's is a wilful distortion of the facts. The player has failed on a number of the standard security checks, which is why there is a problem in the first place.

And FWIW "tell it straight to his face" sounds good and manly and all that but in the world of fraud detection and verification no one does this because it just means the fraudsters have a golden opportunity to go to ground, hone their techniques, and come back smarter another day. It's a murky world out there folks and things can't always have A-B-C clarity. Does that suck? Sure it does. Does getting scalped by fraudsters suck? Sure it does. Et voila! The game plays on.

At this point I should clear up a few misconceptions that have crept into the discussion:

• as I recall the player did provide documents. The casino's issues weren't necessarily document related.
• the OP is apparently on vacation. His non-responsiveness to the discussion so far is likely related to that.

 

[skiny]

Cute but not particularly applicable. If the "laundry" is the player's case and the "dirt" you're supposedly trying to beat out is casino mismanagement then you're beating up clean laundry. So beating on it "until the dirt comes out" will probably just ruin the laundry. So congratulations, you've got tired arms, wasted a bunch of soap and water and turned perfectly good laundry into threadbare rags. There's a good day's work for you!

This idea that any case is a good case when it comes to championing player rights is BS. I see a lot of these player cases pass over my desk and the vast majority where the player is caught up in the system -- as I suggest we could describe this case -- are due to the player trying to dick around with the system. In other words they're cheating but they haven't totally cocked it up so the jury is still out. And whose fault is that?

Wow. That was a bit of a rant. Who said I was championing anyone's rights? I said I don't know what the full story is. In fact, several times I said it was strange the way the OP has handled this whole situation. But people do weird things. Hell, even I do weird things. That doesn't automatically make either one of us a crook. And at what point did I say the dirt had anything to do with the casino? You accuse me of making assumptions but I find the assumptions you're making even more interesting. If I don't jump out and convict a player without all the facts, I'm calling the casino mismanaged? Beating the dirt out of these stories is what we've been doing here for years. I don't see why anyone should be expected to gather behind the casino or the player until all the facts are known. At the time of my postings I did not have all the facts. And I will not conclude anyone - casino or player - is lying without them.

Suggesting that the player who hasn't been proven guilty is an innocent player is like saying that the bank robber who hasn't been captured yet is still innocent. No, he's just at large, no more and no less.

Actually he is innocent if he hasn't been caught. He's an alleged bank robber until he's convicted in a court of law. At least that's the way it works in my country. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[maxd]

Who said I was championing anyone's rights?

I did! You said "Making a 'hullaballoo' about every case is how we get things done" and I was demonstrating how misguided that may be. If you misspoke then so be it but I can only respond to what you say, not what you wanted to say or might have said.

Actually he is innocent if he hasn't been caught. ... I wouldn't have it any other way.

You're assuming that i-gaming enjoys the same rule of law that your country has. I think I've made it clear why that isn't so, hence the rules are different.

And are we not starting to get into semantics, the difference between "caught" and "captured"? I'm saying that the bank robber may well be guilty, whether he has been captured or not. Whatever, I suspect we're kicking a dead metaphor here.

Wow. That was a bit of a rant.

Do we really want to go there? Is this an adult discussion or school-yard squabble? I assumed the former.

 

[P.V.]

The OP should acknowledge what fraud they've been accused of and present their case to avoid further confusion within the community.